Appeals court upholds FCC’s wireless data roaming rules

Verizon Wireless had sued to block their implementation.

A federal appeals court in Washington, DC has upheld a Federal Communications Commission rule that will force wireless carriers to share access to their data networks with competitors on "commercially reasonable" terms. The ruling is a victory for small wireless carriers who have argued that they need access to their larger competitors' networks to offer nationwide wireless service. But it's a setback for Verizon and AT&T, the two largest carriers, which have argued that the FCC should leave the matter to voluntary negotiations.

The FCC has long required wireless carriers to support voice roaming of each other's customers. If you travel out of range of your own wireless carrier's towers, your cell phone will automatically connect to a competitor's tower to enable you to make voice calls. The competitor will handle the call and then bill your "home" carrier for the service on terms that are regulated by the FCC.

In 2007, the FCC began to consider whether to extend this mandatory roaming regime to data services. The two largest incumbents, AT&T and Verizon, opposed the idea. They noted that carriers were already negotiating such roaming agreements, and they argued that mandatory roaming would reduce their incentives to expand their own networks. But smaller carriers were uniformly supportive of the move. They argued that roaming regulations were needed to ensure they would be able to offer nationwide Internet service.

When the FCC announced a data roaming rule in 2011, Verizon Wireless sued to block its implementation. The firm argued that Congress had not given the commission the authority to regulate wireless data service. In particular, it noted that the FCC had classified mobile data service as an "information service." By law, information services are exempt from the common carrier regulations that apply to mobile voice services. Yet in Verizon's view, requiring that carriers carry traffic for their competitors' subscribers is de facto common carrier regulation, which isn't allowed under the statute.

But a unanimous three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Verizon's arguments. The court ruled that federal law gives the FCC broad authority to regulate the use of electromagnetic spectrum, and that the data roaming rules fit comfortably within that authority. And the court disagreed with Verizon's claim that the data roaming rules were effectively common carrier regulations. While incumbents must offer data roaming services on "commercially reasonable" terms, the regulations give them flexibility to negotiate the specific terms of interconnection. Such flexibility, the court held, means that the regulations do not amount to a common carriage regime.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski hailed the ruling. "Our rules have empowered consumers and expanded their ability to enjoy the benefits of seamless and nationwide access to mobile data services, including wireless Internet and e-mail," he said in a statement e-mailed to Ars Technica.

John Bergmayer, an attorney at Public Knowledge, also praised the decision, which he argued "protects consumers by allowing smaller wireless carriers to offer nationwide service, and ensures that customers of smaller providers can travel around the country without incurring high bills or losing service."

Bergmayer also suggested that the ruling could have implications for the ongoing court fight over the FCC's network neutrality rules. "Many of the legal arguments Verizon made in its challenge to this Order it is also making in its challenge to the Commission's Open Internet Order. This decision may indicate that courts are casting a more skeptical eye on telecommunications companies' endless challenges to the FCC's ability to carry out its job," Bergmayer said.

I hate telcos about as much as I hate monopolized broadband providers. But when they go 'Wonder Twin Powers Activate' I really get pissed.

Quote:

They noted that carriers were already negotiating such roaming agreements, and they argued that mandatory roaming would reduce their incentives to expand their own networks.

What I read here is not that it would reduce their incentive to expand their networks but that it would allow them less money to shovel to major stakeholders. I've not seen any real instances where any corporation of this ilk had their customers best interests at heart. More often it's them fleecing the public shamelessly and only changing course when their actions are egregious enough to catch the public's oft waning attention.

They will just bribe more next time. Ever notice how every megacorp gets what they want eventually, as some sort of a "compromise" (with compromise being exactly what the megacorporation wanted originally).

Now you're speculating about something that can't be proven. How do you know that they have already been bribed? Just asking.

They will just bribe more next time. Ever notice how every megacorp gets what they want eventually, as some sort of a "compromise" (with compromise being exactly what the megacorporation wanted originally).

Now you're speculating about something that can't be proven. How do you know that they have already been bribed? Just asking.

They will just bribe more next time. Ever notice how every megacorp gets what they want eventually, as some sort of a "compromise" (with compromise being exactly what the megacorporation wanted originally).

A small win for consumers in a nation that allowed wireless service providers to build incompatible networks and continues to allow carriers to build incompatible networks.

One carrier's network will always be compatible with another carriers network. First it was GSM/CDMA. Now we're all moving to LTE. But now we have issues with band compatibility (which spectrum is compatible with which phone) which will only get worse as the FCC auctions more spectrum off (300MHz by 2015, 500MHz by 2020).

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. It's more of a statement about the system in general. In the end, between politicians, corporations, and the community that lobbies on behalf of them, we the general public are getting the shaft. It's just a matter of how much before there is a collective public outcry. Meredith Attwell Barker, at least in my mind, epitomized most everything that is wrong in the system.

Spoiler: show

Wikipedia wrote:

The change was harshly criticized by many newspapers and organizations. Free Press, a media interest group, said it was "just the latest, though perhaps most blatant, example of a so-called public servant cashing in at a company she is supposed to be regulating.”[14] The Center for Responsive Politics said, "It's a big boon for Comcast," noting that consumers "can't afford to hire someone of a similar stature to advocate for them."[12] Timothy P. Carney, a political columnist for The Washington Examiner, characterized it as "unseemly" and "depressing" that she "monetize[d] her public service in this way."

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

Not really amazing. The US is the fourth largest country in the world, and has an extremely low population density (178 out of 242 countries). Pakistan, for example, has 6 times the population per sq. km, and is vastly smaller. That makes providing wireless service there considerably easier than in the US.

It's a problem with broadband and a host of other things as well.

(also, it's not what we "think of as", the term "third-world" has a very well established meaning that isn't even derogatory, despite how people have come to use it. You could be the wealthiest nation in the world and still be "third world").

Ah..... Verizon and AT&T.... you keep giving me more and more reasons to divert my money elsewhere. Between them, Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox.... all of these companies keep trying to see how much blood they can squeeze out of us. Oh look, here's another way we can squeeze the customer!!!! Let's do it!

Sorry, just to me, it doesn't seem like they're competing against each other. It seems more like they're working together, competing against their customers to see how much they can screw us.

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

Not really amazing. The US is the fourth largest country in the world, and has an extremely low population density (178 out of 242 countries). Pakistan, for example, has 6 times the population per sq. km, and is vastly smaller. That makes providing wireless service there considerably easier than in the US.

It's a problem with broadband and a host of other things as well.

(also, it's not what we "think of as", the term "third-world" has a very well established meaning that isn't even derogatory, despite how people have come to use it. You could be the wealthiest nation in the world and still be "third world").

That's really kind of misleading.

You mean to tell me some of the northern, mountainous regions in Pakistan have a higher population density? -_- Be realistic. Please. There are regions of the US that are comparable. In fact, depending by which model you go by, we're about even. My evidence?

Some of the urban areas in these developing countries have extensive wireless infrastructure because they ARE developing. There IS very little infrastructure and wireless is the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to go in those areas. What would you rather do? Set up a cellular relay or start setting up service poles to run wires? -_-

What IS sad, is that in many of the US urban areas, we have poor coverage still. There are parts of my Southern California city (major city with 1 million plus) within one mile of downtown that don't have cellular reception. Yet, these companies tout "4G" for this area? My question is WHERE?!?!?!?! I have YET to get a 4G signal ANYWHERE here.

No..... I go back to what I said previously. We're locked into a battle with some of these companies. How much can they get us to pay for as little as they have to give in exchange. My impression from these companies isn't a matter of improving over their competitors and providing better service for a better price in order to get ahead. It's a matter of, how can we get more out of our customers without having to do anything more?

Pakistan's population is also largely gathered around what amounts to a smaller portion of their country, clustered closer to the Indian border.

Also, cherry-picking information isn't a great way to present an argument. I could just as well argue that Pakistan doesn't deserve the coverage New York City receives because New York City's population density is approximately 46 times that of Pakistan's. Yet New York City frequently has issues with cellular support for its population (go Google about the issues AT&T has had with data over its infrastructure in NYC).

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

Not really amazing. The US is the fourth largest country in the world, and has an extremely low population density (178 out of 242 countries). Pakistan, for example, has 6 times the population per sq. km, and is vastly smaller. That makes providing wireless service there considerably easier than in the US.

It's a problem with broadband and a host of other things as well.

(also, it's not what we "think of as", the term "third-world" has a very well established meaning that isn't even derogatory, despite how people have come to use it. You could be the wealthiest nation in the world and still be "third world").

That's really kind of misleading.

You mean to tell me some of the northern, mountainous regions in Pakistan have a higher population density? -_- Be realistic. Please. There are regions of the US that are comparable. In fact, depending by which model you go by, we're about even. My evidence?

Some of the urban areas in these developing countries have extensive wireless infrastructure because they ARE developing. There IS very little infrastructure and wireless is the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to go in those areas. What would you rather do? Set up a cellular relay or start setting up service poles to run wires? -_-

What IS sad, is that in many of the US urban areas, we have poor coverage still. There are parts of my Southern California city (major city with 1 million plus) within one mile of downtown that don't have cellular reception. Yet, these companies tout "4G" for this area? My question is WHERE?!?!?!?! I have YET to get a 4G signal ANYWHERE here.

No..... I go back to what I said previously. We're locked into a battle with some of these companies. How much can they get us to pay for as little as they have to give in exchange. My impression from these companies isn't a matter of improving over their competitors and providing better service for a better price in order to get ahead. It's a matter of, how can we get more out of our customers without having to do anything more?

What city are we talking about here? I doubt that a city with as large a population as you claim lacks cellular reception of any form.

I live in the Bay City/Midland/Saginaw region of Michigan and we have 4G HSPA+ and are slated for LTE in a few weeks at least from AT&T. I believe Verizon already has LTE here.

This area isn't the boonies but it isn't a major metro either.

On Topic: The only issue I have with this law is the elusive "reasonable rate" stipulation. Who determines what is fair and reasonable in this instance, and is the rate based on actual cost to provide service or some random number thrown in the air?

Companies love and hate regulation. They hate it when it affects them, but they love it when they can use it against their competition.

Yes he is. Bribing a Government Official (along with most everyone else) is illegal, and Meredith Attwell Baker has not been charged, nor accused (by anyone that matters) of violating any laws or Government ethical standards. Maybe the appearance of something going on, but no facts to prove it.

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

Not really amazing. The US is the fourth largest country in the world, and has an extremely low population density (178 out of 242 countries). Pakistan, for example, has 6 times the population per sq. km, and is vastly smaller. That makes providing wireless service there considerably easier than in the US.

It's a problem with broadband and a host of other things as well.

(also, it's not what we "think of as", the term "third-world" has a very well established meaning that isn't even derogatory, despite how people have come to use it. You could be the wealthiest nation in the world and still be "third world").

That's really kind of misleading.

You mean to tell me some of the northern, mountainous regions in Pakistan have a higher population density? -_- Be realistic. Please. There are regions of the US that are comparable. In fact, depending by which model you go by, we're about even. My evidence?

Some of the urban areas in these developing countries have extensive wireless infrastructure because they ARE developing. There IS very little infrastructure and wireless is the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to go in those areas. What would you rather do? Set up a cellular relay or start setting up service poles to run wires? -_-

What IS sad, is that in many of the US urban areas, we have poor coverage still. There are parts of my Southern California city (major city with 1 million plus) within one mile of downtown that don't have cellular reception. Yet, these companies tout "4G" for this area? My question is WHERE?!?!?!?! I have YET to get a 4G signal ANYWHERE here.

No..... I go back to what I said previously. We're locked into a battle with some of these companies. How much can they get us to pay for as little as they have to give in exchange. My impression from these companies isn't a matter of improving over their competitors and providing better service for a better price in order to get ahead. It's a matter of, how can we get more out of our customers without having to do anything more?

What city are we talking about here? I doubt that a city with as large a population as you claim lacks cellular reception of any form.

I live in the Bay City/Midland/Saginaw region of Michigan and we have 4G HSPA+ and are slated for LTE in a few weeks at least from AT&T. I believe Verizon already has LTE here.

This area isn't the boonies but it isn't a major metro either.

On Topic: The only issue I have with this law is the elusive "reasonable rate" stipulation. Who determines what is fair and reasonable in this instance, and is the rate based on actual cost to provide service or some random number thrown in the air?

Companies love and hate regulation. They hate it when it affects them, but they love it when they can use it against their competition.

I'm in San Diego and live less than 2 miles from the center of downtown, yet there ARE portions of this area that DO NOT get cell phone coverage. That was part of why I dropped AT&T. Their map may CLAIM coverage, but the reality is otherwise. I have a friend who has had to get a cellphone repeater in order to get coverage at his home. IN San Diego.

The court ruled that federal law gives the FCC broad authority to regulate the use of electromagnetic spectrum, and that the data roaming rules fit comfortably within that authority

It looks like a court finally leapt to the heart of the matter. This cagey game of hocus pocus the telcos and cable companies have been playing with what is information and what is television and what is telephony has really been astonishing to my mind: I keep hoping that someone will cut through the bullshit and note that it's all information/bits in one form or another being passed around through wires or the air. If the court in fact used the phrase "electromagnetic spectrum" I would like to be able to buy each of those judges flowers.

What city are we talking about here? I doubt that a city with as large a population as you claim lacks cellular reception of any form.

I live in the Bay City/Midland/Saginaw region of Michigan and we have 4G HSPA+ and are slated for LTE in a few weeks at least from AT&T. I believe Verizon already has LTE here.

In Nashville I can be standing on Broadway or Second Avenue and be roaming with 0 bars -- that being a 4G HSPA+ city, too. There are tons of pockets in the city that don't get reception because of poorly aimed antennas, hills, and questionable cell phone tower placement, or lack thereof.

Nashville's pretty high on the urban sprawl list (lots and lots of trees and grass, so it's a good thing), and sure, there are some geographic factors involved with hills, but after extensive conversations with cell tower infrastructure workers and execs, the much bigger problem is 1) planning, and 2) zoning. Most of the cell companies will place cell towers like they're stopping leaks with chewing gum without any regard for future-proofing. 4G HSPA+ is a pretty good illustration of that.

The U.S. is definitely large and has a lot of sprawl. The local deer on the city outskirts also don't need cell tower coverage. It's not that hard to build out your infrastructure, especially when half of it can be solved by pointing your tower's amplifiers in not-the-same direction, as had happened on my local tower. Seriously, boot up an application that shows you connection information (Tasker), and it will make you go "WTF?"

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

To which "third world countries" are you referring? Wyoming? The U.S. has been and continues to be the leader in 4G LTE infrastructure. According to Wireless Intelligence, the research arm of the global GSM Association, in November 2012, nearly half of all global LTE devices are connected to one of the 15 live LTE networks in the U.S. or Canada. Europe has been much slower to adopt the new 4G technology, while LTE activity in Asia has been limited primarily to Korea and Japan.

In case you were thinking of Korea and Japan, I doubt many Americans think of either as "third world countries." Both are considered "advanced economies" by the International Monetary Fund, both are "high-income" OECD members, both are members of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (which discuss aid and poverty reduction in developing countries), and both are members of the prestigious G20.

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

Not really amazing. The US is the fourth largest country in the world, and has an extremely low population density (178 out of 242 countries). Pakistan, for example, has 6 times the population per sq. km, and is vastly smaller. That makes providing wireless service there considerably easier than in the US.

It's a problem with broadband and a host of other things as well.

(also, it's not what we "think of as", the term "third-world" has a very well established meaning that isn't even derogatory, despite how people have come to use it. You could be the wealthiest nation in the world and still be "third world").

That's really kind of misleading.

You mean to tell me some of the northern, mountainous regions in Pakistan have a higher population density? -_- Be realistic. Please. There are regions of the US that are comparable. In fact, depending by which model you go by, we're about even. My evidence?

Some of the urban areas in these developing countries have extensive wireless infrastructure because they ARE developing. There IS very little infrastructure and wireless is the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to go in those areas. What would you rather do? Set up a cellular relay or start setting up service poles to run wires? -_-

What IS sad, is that in many of the US urban areas, we have poor coverage still. There are parts of my Southern California city (major city with 1 million plus) within one mile of downtown that don't have cellular reception. Yet, these companies tout "4G" for this area? My question is WHERE?!?!?!?! I have YET to get a 4G signal ANYWHERE here.

No..... I go back to what I said previously. We're locked into a battle with some of these companies. How much can they get us to pay for as little as they have to give in exchange. My impression from these companies isn't a matter of improving over their competitors and providing better service for a better price in order to get ahead. It's a matter of, how can we get more out of our customers without having to do anything more?

What city are we talking about here? I doubt that a city with as large a population as you claim lacks cellular reception of any form.

I live in the Bay City/Midland/Saginaw region of Michigan and we have 4G HSPA+ and are slated for LTE in a few weeks at least from AT&T. I believe Verizon already has LTE here.

This area isn't the boonies but it isn't a major metro either.

On Topic: The only issue I have with this law is the elusive "reasonable rate" stipulation. Who determines what is fair and reasonable in this instance, and is the rate based on actual cost to provide service or some random number thrown in the air?

Companies love and hate regulation. They hate it when it affects them, but they love it when they can use it against their competition.

I would assume that in order for the rates to be "reasonable" the agreements carriers like Verizon & AT&T make with smaller carriers will be available to the public in some fashion so small carriers can make sure they don't get fleeced. Such as Carrier A get a(n) agreement at $.05 while Carrier B is only offered $.10 for the same amount of service.

In a world of sense and order the FCC would come up with a rate structure and say use it or face the consequences along with reviewing the agreements to make sure everyone followed the rules. But that would make sense so its not likely.

It's amazing that what Americans think of as third world countries actualy have better wireless infrastructure than US.

And where would these places be? Just came from the EU and don't think they are much better at their wireless. In the US I can go from NJ to Florida without paying anything more in service but going from Germany to Italy I pay roaming charges. Seriously the EU needs to better integrate their services across member states, they still are still way too disconnected from each other. Its like if the US had regional carriers for every state and then having to pay to leave your home state.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.